Some Advice On Key Issues

I wanted to share a couple of stories that provide some advice on a couple of the key issues that face the nation right now.  First, we have a direct message to John McCain from Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics.com:

I suggest the McCain campaign take this first paragraph from Gail Russell Chaddock in today's CS Monitor and nail it to the wall:

The Democratic-controlled Congress and the Bush administration have presided over a surge in new federal spending obligations that may be the most enduring legacy of the 110th Congress.

McCain regularly touts his bona fides as a deficit hawk on the stump - always to hearty applause, by the way - but too often he does so almost in passing and by rote, using the catchy but now tired phrase that he will "make the authors of pork barrel projects famous."

If I were advising McCain, however, I would tell him to devote much more time and put much more emphasis on the issue of spending, because it's an issue that:

1) credibly reinforces his image as an independent and a maverick

2) allows him break sharply with Bush in a way that will appeal to Independents and energize conservatives

3) gives him the opportunity to rail at a Democratic-led Congress with job approval ratings in the low teens/high single digits.

Perhaps most importantly, McCain can tie in the critique of Obama as a big-spending liberal and use it to paint the fearful scenario for voters that Bill Kristol outlined last week, which is: if you think pork barrel spending is profligate now, imagine what it will be like after four years of President Obama working with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.

This is some extremely good advice.  The economy is clearly the driving issue on American minds right now, and McCain has a definite edge there.  He needs to keep control of it.  I think that these Washington politicians are so clueless -- as evidenced by their historically abysmal approval ratings -- that they collectively don't really understand the depth of resentment the American people have for them right now.  This is a chronic pain that we have to deal with in our elected leaders, but things have spun way out of control over the past few years.  This is one of the few areas in which McCain is right to contrast with Bush; in pledging to be a 'deficit hawk' he can help rally votes.

Second is an issue that cannot be avoided: Iran.  Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton offers a stern warning against political negotiations dragging on.  Excerpts:

This weekend, yet another "deadline" passed for Iran to indicate it was seriously ready to discuss ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Like so many other deadlines during these five years of European-led negotiations, this one died quietly, with Brussels diplomats saying that no one seriously expected any real work on a Saturday.

The fact that the Europeans are right -- this latest deadline is not fundamentally big news -- is precisely the problem with their negotiations, and the Bush administration's acquiescence in that effort.

The rationality of continued Western negotiations with Iran depends critically on two assumptions: that Iran is far enough away from having deliverable nuclear weapons that we don't incur excessive risks by talking; and that by talking we don't materially impede the option to use military force. Implicit in the latter case is the further assumption that the military option is static -- that it remains equally viable a year from now as it is today.

Neither assumption is correct.

First, while the European-led negotiations proceed, Iran continues both to convert uranium from a solid (uranium oxide, U3O8, also called yellowcake) to a gas.

As Isfahan's continuing operations increase both Iran's UF6 inventory and its technical expertise, however, the impact of destroying the facility diminishes. Iran is building a stockpile of UF6 that it can subsequently enrich even while it reconstructs Isfahan after an attack, or builds a new conversion facility elsewhere.

Second, delay permits Iran to increase its stock of low-enriched uranium (LEU) -- that is, UF6 gas in which the U235 isotope concentration (the form of uranium critical to nuclear reactions either in reactors or weapons) is raised from its natural level of 0.7% to between 3% and 5%.

As its LEU stockpile increases, so too does Tehran's capacity to take the next step, and enrich it to weapons-grade concentrations of over 90% U235 (highly-enriched uranium, or HEU).

destroying Iran's enrichment facility at Natanz does not eliminate its existing enriched uranium (LEU), which the IAEA estimated in May 2008 to be approximately half what is needed for one nuclear weapon. Iran is thus more than two-thirds of the way to weapons-grade uranium with each kilogram of uranium it enriches to LEU levels.

Third, although we cannot know for sure, every indication is that Iran is dispersing its nuclear facilities to unknown locations, "hardening" against air strikes the ones we already know about, and preparing more deeply buried facilities in known locations for future operations. That means that the prospects for success against, say, the enrichment facilities at Natanz are being reduced.

Fourth, Iran is clearly increasing its defensive capabilities by purchasing Russian S-300 antiaircraft systems (also known as the SA-20) directly or through Belarus.

Fifth, Iran continues to increase the offensive capabilities of surrogates like Syria and Hezbollah, both of which now have missile capabilities that can reach across Israel, as well as threaten U.S. troops and other U.S. friends and allies in the region. It may well be Syria and Hezbollah that retaliate initially after an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, thus making further strikes against Iran more problematic, at least in the short run.

Iran is pursuing two goals simultaneously, both of which it is comfortably close to achieving. The first -- to possess all the capabilities necessary for a deliverable nuclear weapon -- is now almost certainly impossible to stop diplomatically. Thus, Iran's second objective becomes critical: to make the risks of a military strike against its program too high, and to make the likelihood of success in fracturing the program too low. Time favors Iran in achieving these goals. U.S. and European diplomats should consider this while waiting by the telephone for Iran to call.

We are allowing ourselves to be boxed into a corner in regard to Iran by relying too much on negotiation.  While we have repeatedly pledged to defend Israel if it were to be attacked, the ramifications of retaliation may be more complex than a pre-emptive strike.  When you consider that Israel is rarely afraid to take unpopular action in the face of existential threats (and they are once again saying they are prepared to attack Iran if necessary), we may be dragged into a conflict we don't want under very unfavorable circumstances.  By playing defense rather than offense, we risk much greater damage in the long run - after all, political damage isn't nearly as devastating as an actual nuke or two going off in your backyard.  The question in this game of nuclear chicken is: how crazy is the Iranian leadership?  Israel's arsenal alone would be enough to devastate Iran, much less a combined effort with the U.S. and/or other world nuclear powers.

Personally, I don't find that logic comforting.  From all I've seen of the radical Islamic mindset, they care nothing for deterrents or suicidal situations; to the contrary, they crave them.  To them, dying in a blaze of glorious martyrdom while annihilating millions of infidels is the highest calling of Islam.  In that context, can we really expect even a unanimous global nuclear response (which you know won't happen) to realistically deter them?

No.

If we want to avoid a nuclear Iran, the only realistic option is to destroy their nuclear capabilities.  The most direct way would be an attack on their facilities, which would be militarily very feasible, but mustering the political will to do so will be incredibly difficult.  Another option would be to completely cut off Iran from the world - put up a naval and land blockade, preventing all trade with the country until its nuclear program is torn down completely.  Though the crazies are in charge there, the people of Iran are not necessarily happy about what they're doing.  A little internal rebellion could go a long way toward bringing Iran to its knees pretty quickly (I've seen stories here and there that the youth of Iran, in particular, are actually quite pro-American).  Yes, I do realize that cutting off Iran in such a fashion would probably spike the price of oil, but we appear to be running out of options.  It's too bad we haven't been acquiring our own national resources for the past 30 years, isn't it?  If we were still importing only 30% of our oil like we used to rather than 70% like we do now, we'd be in a much better position to actually accomplish something like this.  Thank you, liberalism, for your contribution to this effort.

Still, I'm sure that people much smarter than me can come up with more options to reign in Iran without bringing nuclear war upon the world.  The fact is that negotiation hasn't ever worked, and won't work in the future.  If we don't come up with something else fast, it looks increasingly likely that Iran is going to answer the nuclear question for us.

There's my two cents.